What's new

Discuss PN potential up-gradation of FFGs

But Raytheon explains..

Raytheon cites several benefits. For example, the arrays require less power and weigh far less than rotating radars and individual fire control directors, enabling SPY-5’s fixed phased-array to be flexibly located on the upper deck or mast. Simultaneous tracking and illumination of both air and surface targets, combined with support for both missile and surface gunfire control, alleviates the need for multiple radars.

In addition, SPY-5 provides improved defensive fire power for the combatant, with each array face capable of supporting multiple simultaneous engagements. Additionally, SPY-5’s range, accuracy and beam agility are designed to maximise ESSM’s performance envelope, while operation in the X-band optimises performance in the littoral maritime environment.

DSEi 2009 - SPY-5 radar scans new horizons

However the discussion is pointless Spy-5 is not matured yet...

1. You totally are missing the point. Its a radar power and range issue. None of the bolded text has anything to do with that. So Raytheon "doesn't explain anything".

2. Raytheon and Thales worked together on a small ESSM oriented version of APAR called Seapar for some time before they decided to part ways on this project. It is not a big step from there to SPY-5. Besides, Raytheon is actively marketing it since september 2009 (press release message reads "raytheon has developed a new radar"). Besides:
"Raytheon’s technical approach for SPY-5 combines the proven Mk 73 Mod 3 2kW solid-state transmitter system and associated Mk 30 radar processor below-deck with a new phased array lens antenna system, the latter employing patented phase shifter technology, to allow the instantaneous electronic beam steering....A dual-face EDM model has been installed at Raytheon’s test site at Portsmouth, Rhode Island, and radiated for the first time in July. This will initially be used for performance characterisation, to be followed by integration testing with ESSM and the NATO SeaSparrow Missile System. Officials say they are aiming to achieve full system qualification by the end of 2010."
http://www.janes.com/events/exhibitions/dsei2009/sections/daily/day2/spy5-radar-scans-new-hori.shtml

3. Shall we also refrain then from discussing other equally non-matured systems then, e.g. the Israeli MF STAR, to be adopted by IN, in ombination with the equally unmatured Barak 8? Or the Australian Ceafar & Ceamount? Northrop is (already) marketing it.
 
Last edited:
Back up your claims with sources. Are you trying to imply Mk-13 arm was supplied to other nations? Do you have a link that US has not kept the MK13 arm in its storage? Only SM-1 was supplied to other nations which was diverted from USN FFGs.
I dont have to provide any sources because all i have said is that under intensive refurbishment PN can request US to reinstall MK13 arm back to its original place probably without any significant cost.

I'm not sure about the Mk13, as I stated is the the normal procedure to a phased out system. Its useless to keep them in stocks for years because it is considered as a scrap and uses whatever fit for its purpose to cut the maintenance.
 
My comment is based on the bold part.
That's months, not years (as with some naval systems). Some naval systems take a decade to fully mature. Should one therefore refrain from considering them?

One could argue that upgrading OHPs by PN along the lines discussed here would only become an issue when more units become available i.e. around 2013, by which time SPY-5 would be more matured (to the extent it is not now considered matured). Happy?
 
I'm not sure about the Mk13, as I stated is the the normal procedure to a phased out system. Its useless to keep them in stocks for years because it is considered as a scrap and uses whatever fit for its purpose to cut the maintenance.

Assuming that's the case, there are 2 OHPs with launcher arm sitting deactivated in Bremerton, which could be used. Further, France will be paying off 2 Cassard class ships this year, which are Mk13 equipped and could yield launcer arms. And with the advent of F100 class, Spain has in recent years decommissioned 5 Baleares class frigates, a Knox variation with a Mk22 launcher, that uses the same launcher arm holds only 16 instread of 40 missiles (1 ring instead of 2 ring magazine). Those too could be readily available commercially, depending on what Spain has done with the ships (in reserve or disposed off via scrapping) . Plus, all ex-USN perrys in foreign service would need to be supported and these all have a functional launcher arm (that means: spares supplied via US contractors). Likewise for 2 ex-Dutch L-frigates with functional Mk13 in Chilean navy service and Italy has 2 DDG ships with Mk13 still in service.
 
Assuming that's the case, there are 2 OHPs with launcher arm sitting deactivated in Bremerton, which could be used. Further, France will be paying off 2 Cassard class ships this year, which are Mk13 equipped and could yield launcer arms. And with the advent of F100 class, Spain has in recent years decommissioned 5 Baleares class frigates, a Knox variation with a Mk22 launcher, that uses the same launcher arm holds only 16 instread of 40 missiles (1 ring instead of 2 ring magazine). Those too could be readily available commercially, depending on what Spain has done with the ships (in reserve or disposed off via scrapping) . Plus, all ex-USN perrys in foreign service would need to be supported and these all have a functional launcher arm (that means: spares supplied via US contractors). Likewise for 2 ex-Dutch L-frigates with functional Mk13 in Chilean navy service and Italy has 2 DDG ships with Mk13 still in service.

IMO acquiring from the most recently retired fleets is better than 7 year old stock (if its still there).

The following link touches the points discussing here.

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2009gunmissile/7744newell.pdf
 
IMO acquiring from the most recently retired fleets is better than 7 year old stock (if its still there).

Well. not necessarily. After all, parts from recently retired vessels will have seen 7 more years of use, thus more wear and tear than properly packed and stored parts that have been sitting on a shelf for that same period.

The following link touches the points discussing here.

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2009gunmissile/7744newell.pdf

Significantly: "U.S. Navy FFGs still retain the capability to launch SM-1"
 
Last edited:
IMO acquiring from the most recently retired fleets is better than 7 year old stock (if its still there).

The following link touches the points discussing here.

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2009gunmissile/7744newell.pdf

Good link but it does not touches your point.
MK-13 and Stir were removed from USN FFGs to support allies SM-1 demand and as well as US cost saving plans.
Only the MK-13 arm was removed as per the news circulating around.

The article does not touches your point as it does not mentions anything about MK-13 launch arm system being disposed off or transferred to other customers.
 
The article does not touches your point as it does not mentions anything about MK-13 launch arm system being disposed off or transferred to other customers.

Significantly, one of the slides reads: "U.S. Navy FFGs still retain the capability to launch SM-1" which suggests not only that removed arms were not disposed of but also that they can be reinstalled.
 
Good link but it does not touches your point.
MK-13 and Stir were removed from USN FFGs to support allies SM-1 demand and as well as US cost saving plans.
Only the MK-13 arm was removed as per the news circulating around.

The article does not touches your point as it does not mentions anything about MK-13 launch arm system being disposed off or transferred to other customers.

All I have stated is normal procedure of retired ordnance, not sure whether still it is in stock or not. Moreover, it is wise to avoid a system which has been kept in inventory for a long time without proper maintenance (As a retired equipment there is no point to conduct a periodic maintenance).
 
All I have stated is normal procedure of retired ordnance, not sure whether still it is in stock or not. Moreover, it is wise to avoid a system which has been kept in inventory for a long time without proper maintenance (As a retired equipment there is no point to conduct a periodic maintenance).

Stop trying to derail this thread please by going on about a point already discussed to death in another thread. And not relevant in the context of this thread. Don't say I didn't ask politely.
 
Significantly, one of the slides reads: "U.S. Navy FFGs still retain the capability to launch SM-1" which suggests not only that removed arms were not disposed of but also that they can be reinstalled.

All its subsystem are still remaining in the ship so obviously it can fire missiles after re installing MK-13 & missiles. Where does it states that removed arms were not disposed ? what is the difference in safe guarding it in the inventory or on the board, both generate expense.
 
All its subsystem are still remaining in the ship so obviously it can fire missiles after re installing MK-13 & missiles. Where does it states that removed arms were not disposed ? what is the difference in safe guarding it in the inventory or on the board, both generate expense.

And Where does it says all MK-13 arm launching systems were disposed? Why would USN disposed one of the most important element of FFG when they know FFGs will have potential future costumers!
 
All its subsystem are still remaining in the ship so obviously it can fire missiles after re installing MK-13 & missiles. Where does it states that removed arms were not disposed ? what is the difference in safe guarding it in the inventory or on the board, both generate expense.

Why would one dispose of the arms if most of the rest of the system remained in place?

Phasing out SM1 and not prepping the OHP for SM2 leaves the Mk13 unused but for a Harpoon launcher. Which makes maintenance relatievely moet expensive. It is cheaper to not use the Mk13 any more. The Mk13 cannot be removed as a whole because it causes stability problems and hull stresses. So you leave it in. Nonetheless, one might be able to better preserve the part remaining onboard with the arm removed and the aperture sealed.

Why are you trying to pick a fight?
 
ASW capability of FFGs.

The frigate will be refurbished with anti-submarine missile and other latest systems at a cost of $ 65 million.

This is a 2 year old source and now the cost of refurbishment have been raised from 65 to 78 million dollars. Meaning more systems and up gradation of existing systems would be performed.

Interestingly, In 90s FFG-08 were upgraded with SQQ-89 V2 ASW Combat System.

The AN/SQQ-89 is the ASW Combat System for all surface combatants and will be the technological foundation for the ASW combat system of the DD-21. The ANISQQ-89 combat system suite provides Oliver Hazard Perry (FFG-7), Spruance (DD-963), Ticonderoga (CG-47), and Arleigb Burke (DDG-51) warships with an integrated undersea warfare detection, clas-sification, display, and targeting capability. The system combines and processes all active sonar information, and processes and displays all SH-60B Light Airborne Multi-Purpose System (LAMPS) Mk III sensor data.


FFG-7 OLIVER HAZARD PERRY-class Upgrades

PERRY-class ships were produced in two variants, known as "short-hull" and "long-hull", with the later variant being eight feet longer than the short-hull version. The long-hull ships [FFG 8, 28, 29, 32, 33, 36-61] carry the SH-60B LAMPS III helicopters, while the short-hull units carry the less-capable SH-2G.

The units with long hulls (FFG 7, 8, 15, 28, 29, 32, 36-61) were to have had the sonar suite upgraded to SQQ-89(V)2, with SQS-56 hull sonar retained, SQR-19 towed linear passive hydrophone array added, and SQQ-28 helicopter sonobuoy datalink system added. There were, however, significant delays in the development of the SQQ-89’s processor equipment, and many ships received the SQR-18A towed array with SQR-17 processor as an interim fit. FFG 8 received the towed array during FY 87, along with FFG 55-60; in FY 88, FFG 28, 29, 32, 36, and 39 were equipped; in FY 90, FFG 7 and 15 received the system during overhauls (FFG 7 was lengthened and received the SQQ-89 suite but was not equipped with RAST, leaving her unable to employ SH-60B helicopters); under the FY 91 budget, FFG 9, 48-50, and 52 were modified, and in FY 92, FFG 20 and 51 were equipped. FFG 12 is unusual in having the electronics fit for the LAMPS-III system and in having the towed sonar array but not having had the hull extension to permit flying SH-60B LAMPS-III helicopters. As of 1997, two variants of the SQQ-89 sonar system were in service on this class: SQQ-89(V)10 on FFG 14, 30, 34, 37, 50, 51, 52, and 54, with SQR-19B(V)2 towed array sonar; and SQQ-89(V)2 on FFG 7-9, 11-13, 15, 28, 29, 32, 33, 36, 38-43, 45-49, 53, 55-59, and 61, with SQR-19(V)2 and the UYQ-25A(V)2 processor.

For Arabian Gulf service, FFG 22 and 47 were equipped in 1991 with 25-mm Mk 38 Bushmaster low-angle chain guns amidships on the main deck, and others have since had the weapon added when on deployment. FFG 47 received a Kingfisher mine-avoidance modification to her SQS-56 sonar. FFG 37 conducted trials with the McDonnell Douglas Astronautics Mast-Mounted Sight (a modified helicopter electro-optical device) atop the pilothouse, with the display being in the CIC.

USS Halyburton (FFG-40) completed a Norfolk docking availability in March 2000 in which it received a prototype installation of a new ship service diesel engine on its number four generator. The new engine replaces its originally configured Detroit Diesel 16V-149 series, which is presently installed on all Oliver Hazard Perry (FFG-7) Class frigates. One of the primary drivers for the effort to re-engine the frigate diesels was life cycle affordability. The Detroit Diesels were of a two-stroke design that are no longer in production. This engine is a high-cost driver to the Fleet through high overhaul costs and relatively low time between major overhauls. It is a major item on the Top Management Attention and Top Management Issues (TMA/TMI) program, which assesses items that show undesirable metrics and are costly to maintain. In addition, this engine does not meet current EPA and proposed IMO emission requirements.

Displacements have steadily increased, to the detriment of stability. FFG 59 was delivered at 4,100 tons full load, although the class was designed for 3,600 tons and with only 39 tons planned growth margin. These ships are particularly well protected against splinter and fragmentation damage, with 19-mm aluminum-alloy armor over magazine spaces, 16-mm steel over the main engine-control room, and 19-mm Kevlar plastic armor over vital electronics and command spaces. Because of a hull twisting problem, doubler plates have been added over the hull sides amidships just below the main deck. Speed on one turbine alone is 25 knots. The auxiliary power system uses two retractable pods located well forward and can drive the ships at up to 6 knots. Fin stabilizers began to be backfitted in earlier units, beginning with FFG 26, in 1982.

IMO for PN FFG refurbishments, the SQQ-89(V)2 will be upgraded to SQQ-89(V)10 configuration.
Interestingly The USN DDG and CG have been recently upgraded to (V) 15 configuration.


AN/SQR-19 Tactical Towed Array SONAR (TACTAS)
The AN/SQR-19 Tactical Towed Array SONAR (TACTAS) provides very long-range passive detection of enemy submarines. TACTAS is a long cable full of microphones that is towed about a mile behind the ship. It is towed so far behind the ship so as to not let noise radiating from the ship itself interfere with the noise picked up from targets. Using that noise can determine exactly what ship or submarine is being tracked. The AN/SQR-19B Tactical Array SONAR (TACTAS) is a passive towed array system which provides the ability to detect, classify, and track a large number of submarine contacts at increased ranges. TACTAS is a component sensor of the AN/SQQ-89(V)6 ASW Combat System, and provides significant improvements in passive detection and localization, searching throughout 360 degrees at tactical ship speeds. Processing of complex TACTAS data is performed by the largest computer program assembly ever developed for surface ship anti-submarine warfare.

Meteorology and Oceanography Center Detachment TACTAS support products describe oceanographic and acoustic conditions (using range dependent models) in the prosecution area for towed array ships tasked by CTF-69 for ASW operations. This message is provided when own ship Sonar In-situ Mode Assessment System (SIMAS) or the Mobile Environmental Team’s Mobile Oceanographic Support System MOSS) are not available. It is tailored to the specific towed array carried onboard. The message is transmitted prior to the start of a prosecution and daily thereafter or as requested.



The SQR-19 for PN FFGS may also be upgraded to further configuration which will provide enhanced capability.

SH-60B could most likely be PN answer for FFG LAMPS.

The SH-60B is designed
to operate as an integral fighting unit aboard specifically configured OLIVER HAZARD PERRY (FFG 7) class Guided Missile Frigates, SPRUANCE (DD 963) class Destroyers, ARLEIGH BURKE Flight IIA Guided Missile Destroyers, class Guided Missile Destroyers and TICONDEROGA (CG 47) class Guided Missile Cruisers. What makes the SH-60B different from other helicopters (such as the Army's BLACKHAWK) is its capability to fully integrate with LAMPS capable warships. The Light Airborne Multipurpose System (LAMPS) is part of a complete weapon (ship/air) system.
The SH-60B has a large suite of electronic sensors including radar, electronic support measures (ESM), forward looking infrared (FLIR), and passive/active underwater acoustic devices (sonobouys). All of this equipment is networked into a centralized tactical computer allowing the aircraft to act as a distant and elevated platform for sensors, remote classification/detection, and weapon delivery. All of the information gathered by aircraft sensors are passed back to the ship via a high speed digital radio signal. Personnel located in the ship's Combat Information Center (CIC) can not only view the "downlinked" information in real time, but can also control many of the helicopter's systems remotely. This system extends the ship's sensor, tactical control and attack capabilities while minimizing the risk of counterattack or detection by an enemy.

SH-60B Aircraft prior to BUNO 162349 are capable of the antiship surveillance and targeting (ASST) and ASW roles only. Effective with BUNO 162349 and subsequent, LAMPS MK III are equipped to employ the Mk 2 Mod 7 Penguin missile. LAMPS MK III equipped with the missile can be used in the additional role of ASUW attack. This recent SH-60B modification incorporated the ability to carry the AGM-119B Penguin missile, giving the Seahawka potent surface strike capability. When used in an ASUW mission, the aircraft provides a mobile, elevated platform for observing, identifying, and localizing threat platfoms beyond the parent ship's radar and/or electronic support measure (ESM) horizon. When a suspected threat is detected, classification and targeting data is provided to the parent ship via the datalink for surface-to-surface weapon engagement. Penguin missile equipped aircraft may conduct independent or coordinated attack, dependent upon the threat and tactical scenario. The Penguin is launched at a surface target acquired on the helicopter's radar. Once launched it becomes a "fire-and-forget" weapon which automatically homes in on its target. The Global Positioning System has also become standard equipment on most SH-60Bs. Some LAMPS MK III Seahawks already carry Hellfire missiles and night vision goggles. In addition, funding has been allocated to retrofit all SH-60Bs in the HSL community with forward-looking infrared (FLIR) sensors.

There are two data link antennas--one forward and one aft on the underside of the aircraft. The search radar antenna is also located on the underside of the aircraft. Other antennas (UHF/VHF, HF, radar altimeter, TACAN, ESM, sonobuoy receivers, doppler, ADF, IFF, and GPS) are located at various points on the helicopter.

The left inboard, left outboard, and right weapon pylons accommodate BRU-14/A weapon/stores racks. Fittings for torpedo parachute release lanyards are located on the fuselage aft of each weapon pylon. Effective on BUNO 162349 and subsequent, the left and right inboard pylons have wiring and tubing provisions for auxiliary fuel tanks. All pylons have wiring provisions to accommodate the MK 50 torpedo. The left outboard weapon pylon can accommodate a missile launch assembly (MLA) which is used to mount the MK 2 MOD 7 Penguin air-to-surface missile.

The magnetic anomaly detector (MAD) towed body and reeling machine are mounted on a faired structure that extends from the forward tail-cone transition section on the right side of the aircraft. It is positioned above and aft of the right weapon pylon. The sonobuoy launcher is located on the left side of the aircraft above the left weapon pylon. The sonobuoy launcher is loaded from ground level outside the aircraft. Sonobuoys are pneumatically launched laterally to the left of the aircraft.

The airborne RAST system main probe and external cargo hook are on the bottom fuselage centerline, just aft of the main rotor center line. Fuel service connections, for both gravity and pressure refueling, are located on the left side of the aircraft aft of the weapon pylons. Dual-engine water wash is manifolded from a single-point selector valve connector on the left side of the aircraft above the sensor operator's (SO) window.

The long strokes of both main and tail wheel oleos are designed to dissipate high-sink-rate landing energy. Axle and high-point tie downs are provided at each main gear. Fuselage attachments are provided above the tail gear for connection to the RAST tail-guide winch system allowing aircraft maneuvering and straightening aboard ship and for tail pylon tie down. Emergency flotation bags are installed in the stub wing fairing of the main landing gear on both sides of the aircraft.


The cabin is arranged with the SO station on the left. facing forward. Most of the components of the avionics system are physically located in the SO console rack, situated aft of the ATO's seat, and in the mission avionics rack (MAR), situated aft of the pilot's seat. The SO console contains the necessary controls and indicators for the SO to perform the missions of antisurface warfare (ASUW) and antisubmarine warfare (ASW). To the right of the SO station seat is a seat which accommodates an instructor or, if desired, an additional passenger. The primary passenger seat is on the aft cabin bulkhead, located on the right side. The hoist controls and hover-trim panel are located adjacent to the cabin door. The cargo hook hatch is located forward of the RAST probe housing.





Another interesting element to the subject.


http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/ms2/pdf/AN_SQQ-89A%28V%2915_productcard.pdfThe AN/SQQ-89 was designed from the earliest variants to be fully integrated with the Aegis Combat System, Vertical Launch ASROC (VLA), and Over-The-Side Torpedoes.

As indicated in above sources, PN FFG will be upgraded with anti-submarine missiles. The most likely choice is the VL RUM-139 ASROC meaning VLS MK41 will be installed for this purpose.

 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom